?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

*sigh*

Questions about why Cheney's hunting accident thingie didn't get disclosed earlier? WHO CARES?!? Hunting accidents happen, little nicks and grazes, and this is a non-story.

This incident is good for Jon Stewart, David Letterman, and Jay Leno. If the Democratic Party tries to get any traction out of it, they will simply look stupid.

Please, people, just let it go. Get back to substantive things.

(Though, this reminds me I gotta go check out last night's Daily Show!)

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
tirianmal
Feb. 14th, 2006 03:40 pm (UTC)
Was it a hunting accident or a dum-dum-duuuuuum "hunting accident"?

I'm kidding. I don't seriously consider this a serious story ... but it is funny. And I totally forgot to checkout letterman and leno last night. suck.
chenoameg
Feb. 14th, 2006 03:41 pm (UTC)
Three reasons.

1. Shots were fired that hit someone in the presence of the vice president of the US. Ok, so he fired them, but that's not a non-story.

2. People who know hunting say it happens, but I get the impression that it's the hunting equivalent of not checking if you're kid is in the car seat when you leave the car. It shows sloppiness if not bad judgment, and it can have disastrous consequences if you're not lucky. (for example getting shot in the eye; it was just a matter of luck that he didn't.)

3. They didn't disclose it. This pisses the White House pool off, and probably with good reason. There's some theory that they specifically held the story until after the Sunday news shows. a decision tree which says "people are going to make a big fuss about this, lets hold it until they won't pay so much attention" is a bad decision process. They don't get to decide what's important; even if they're right that the media would blow it out of proportion.
firstfrost
Feb. 14th, 2006 04:54 pm (UTC)
1. Shots were fired that hit someone in the presence of the vice president of the US. Ok, so he fired them, but that's not a non-story.

I think under normal circumstances, "shots were fired in the vicinity of the vice president" would be news, regardless of who it hit, but not so much when you're actually going hunting.

For the rest, sure. :)
yakshaver
Feb. 14th, 2006 03:55 pm (UTC)
There's a lot of stupidity and frothing at the mouth, much of it from oherwise intelligent people, among the current administration's opponents. I've been guilty of it myself at times. Partly it's a reaction to the kind of politics the Republicans started playing in the mid-90s, with the Contract on America and deploying what's supposed to be the solemn and ponderous machinery of impeachment over a President lying about a blow-job. Partly it's a reaction to the contempt this administration has shown, and continues to show, for the rule of law and for the welfare of all but those few Americans who are their friends. I thougbt Ronald Reagan was a fool, but I never questioned that he loved his country and genuinely believed that his policies would make life better for all Americans. I considered GHW Bush competent, though the degree to which he was out of touch with the experience of the average American fell at times to the level of self-parody. These guys seem hell-bent on starting WW3, and they just flout the rule of law. It's hard not to hate them.
twe
Feb. 14th, 2006 05:13 pm (UTC)
Solemn & ponderous machinery of impeachemnt?
The only other impeachment (Andrew Johnson's) was pretty comical and was mostly the result of the president and Congress not getting along.
willtruncheon
Feb. 14th, 2006 04:59 pm (UTC)
I agree. Not really a huge earth-shaking deal. I mean, we KNOW it was totally accidental. Cheney would never intentionally shoot a billionaire lawyer! Devour the soul of any human who carried within them a shred of kindness and human decency, sure, but shoot a wealthy lawyer... never.

Maybe he saw "Surviving the Game" and got a little carried away with the idea of hunting the homeless.
forgotten_aria
Feb. 14th, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)
If I were a conspircy theoriest, I'd be looking for what this is supposed to distract us from.
srakkt
Feb. 14th, 2006 06:36 pm (UTC)
Frankly, I'd honestly be more concerned with the aftermath of a hunting accident if it had been immediately reported that is to say, if the issue of the accident as a news item was somehow higher on the priority list than things like ensuring the health, welfare, and safety of those involved in a potentially life-threatening accident. Sure, it's news that it happened, but it's not politically important that it took eighteen hours for word to reach the press. Those are eighteen hours where the condition of the man who was shot needs to be ascertained, rather than eighteen hours giving rimjobs to reporters.
cmeckhardt
Feb. 14th, 2006 11:28 pm (UTC)
The thing is, you're coming at this from a worldview where hunting happens, and isn't a big deal.
elsinoreblue
Feb. 16th, 2006 04:59 am (UTC)
I was grumbling about this at work today when the second out of 5 hours of NPR this morning was devoted to the "political ramifications" of this incident. I switched off my walkman and mentioned it. 4 out of 6 coworkers present began railing about coverups and conspiracy theories.
One truly believes Cheney did it on purpose to distract from the wiretap story.

I figure, hey, it's not like he bombed the Sudan or anything.

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )